NYTimes' dumbest editorial of the year

[kathleen]

To: Spin...@yahoogroups.com, Spin...@yahoogroups.com,
kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com, patrick.f...@usdoj.gov,
model...@sbcglobal.net, jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com,
Jgerb...@cdc.gov, len...@courant.com, michae...@po.state.ct.us,
con...@po.state.ct.us, executiv...@nytimes.com, managing-
edi...@nytimes.com, news...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com,
biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com, me...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, ubi...@courant.com, ma...@concentric.net,
camp...@courant.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, cohen...@aol.com,
FalN...@aol.com, brans...@comcast.net, vts...@comcast.net,
o...@po.state.ct.us, da...@davila-dilzer.com,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, thomas...@usdoj.gov, amcg...@rms-law.com,
rjmu...@aol.com, paulcrai...@yahoo.com,
sidney_b...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov

Subject: [SpinLyme] NYTimes' dumbest editorial of the year

Date: Dec 23, 2007 6:46 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/opinion/23sun1.html

Editorial
Trade and Prosperity



Article Tools Sponsored By
Published: December 23, 2007

With most polls showing that voters believe trade with other countries
is hurting
the American economy, it is not surprising that there has been a lot
of posturing
about the perils of trade on the campaign trail.


Democrats have been most tempted by the protectionism. John Edwards
likes to talk
about how trade agreements like Nafta "have hurt workers and families
while helping
corporate insiders." Senator Hillary Clinton has suggested that the
economic theories
underpinning the cause for free trade no longer hold, and has said she
would review
all of the United States' trade agreements.

Even Republican candidates -- normally staunch supporters of expanding
trade -- can
sound skeptical. "I don't want to see our food come from China, our
oil come from
Saudi Arabia and our manufacturing come from Europe and Asia,"
complained Mike Huckabee.
Mitt Romney defends globalization's record of improving living
standards, but cannot
resist drawing an applause line by adding that the government should
negotiate better
with other countries to make sure "the American worker gets a fair
shake."

It would be unfortunate for the United States if the winner of the
2008 election
elevated skepticism toward trade from a red-meat sound bite on the
campaign trail
to a new wave of protectionist policy.

Many Americans are experiencing economic anxiety. Wages for most
workers are going
nowhere. It is a sad fact that despite enormous gains in productivity
over the past
few decades, the wages of typical workers are only marginally higher
than they were
a quarter of a century ago. But throttling trade -- say, by
reconsidering existing
agreements -- would hurt a lot more people than it helped. There is
scant evidence
that trade has played a big role in holding down typical workers'
wages. There is
abundant evidence that it has contributed substantially to America's
overall economic
growth. [WHICH IS NOW FALLING FLAT ON ITS FACE BECAUE THE GROWTH WAS
FAKE- IT WAS FUNDED BY THE CHINESE, TO WHOM MUCH OF OUR PRODUCTIVITY
IS OUTSOURCED]. It offers American producers access to foreign
markets [AND RESENTMENT OVER THE JACK ABRAMOFF ASIAN ENSLAVEMENT
RULES]. It multiplies choices for producers and consumers [TOO MUCH
CHEAP STUFF FROM WLMART ADDED TO THE CREDIT CRISIS- SUPPLY-SIDE
REAGANOMICS GONE OVERBOARD]. Foreign competition spurs productivity
growth at home.

Trade, like technological change, can produce wrenching dislocations
that hurt some
workers. But trade barriers are not the proper tool to deal with these
changes.
What is needed is a bold strategy to rebuild a functioning safety net,
deploying
some of the vast wealth this nation has gained through globalization
to assist those
hurt by the forces of economic change. This will allow Americans to
embrace globalization,
rather than fear it.

[[Globalization is another term for the New World Order, where
Democracy actually
means "rape of another country's natural resources and hanging onto
the
petrodollar."]]

The planks of this strategy include health care reform, to ensure that
workers who
lose their jobs do not also lose access to affordable health
insurance, and a form
of extended unemployment insurance for all displaced workers, not just
those hurt
by trade. More progressive taxation -- using tools like the earned
income tax credit
-- should be used to address the stagnation of incomes. And more should
be spent
on the continuous training and education of workers throughout their
lives.

[ASSUMING THERE IS THE CAPITAL FOR THIS, LIKE THERE IS CAPITAL FOR NEW
ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE. THERE ISN'T, UNLESS BUSHIE IS SUCCESSFUL
AT THE RAPE AND PLUNDER OF THE MIDDLE EAST, OR *WE* ARE SUCCESSFUL OF
HAVING THE BASTARD SENT TO THE HAGUE... THEN START OVER WHERE WE LEFT
OFF WITH AL GORE'S INTENDED NEW ENERGY POLICIES.]

It is unclear whether the next president will have the vision to carry
through these
changes. The Republican candidates' posturing on trade has been pretty
much substance-free.
But considering the field's uniform approach to economic policy, in
which all taxes
are bad and most nondefense spending is worse, it is unlikely that a
Republican
president would be interested in investing in such an expansion of
America's social
safety net.

[NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO MANAGE THE CRASH UNLESS WE PROSECUTE SOME
CORPORATIONS, TAKE ALL THEIR ASSETS, AND CONVERT TO THE PETROEURO.
START WITH SMITHKLINE, KAISER-PERMANENTE, HALLIBURTON, and THE YALE
CORPORATION.]

The Democratic candidates, on the other hand, tend to be on the right
side of the
discussion on issues like universal health care, education and social
spending.
But all of them have included hints of defensive trade policies amid
their proposals.
Barack Obama has offered the most resistance to the easy path of
blaming imports
from foreign countries for the woes of the American middle class.
"Global trade
is not going away, technology is not going away, the Internet is not
going away,"
he said in New Hampshire. "And that means enormous opportunities, but
also means
more dislocations."

But Mrs. Clinton proposes a "timeout" on future trade agreements,
including the
World Trade Organization's global trade negotiations, and a
reconsideration of existing
deals -- including Nafta, a cornerstone of Bill Clinton's presidency.
Mr. Edwards
also talks of "redoing" Nafta. All the Democratic candidates agree
that trade agreements
should be amended to attach provisions about minimum labor standards.

These changes would do virtually nothing to protect American workers
from the disruptions
wrought by trade, technology and other economic forces. A
protectionist agenda would
hurt them.

=============================

[THIS IS NOT PROTECTIONISM. THIS IS ANTI-NEW WORLD ORDERISM - which
has done nothing but hurt America in every way imaginable, since the
rest of the world understands
what we're up to, when we talk about "Globalization."]

[THE ANSWER IS, AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, E=mc(squared). WE HAVE TO
FIGURE OUT
THE ENERGY PROBLEM FIRST. YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT ENERGY,
ESPECIALLY MANUFACTURING. Are we not capable of making widgets? Have
Americans become hopelessly retarded since Reagan- one of the worst
presidents we ever had, since he brought stupidity, defeatism, and
cynicism - the Hope of the Republican Party.]

ACTION:
Sue the corporations who committed fraud, convert their assets to
euroes, create
New American Energy and Infrastructure- a New Deal borne on the backs
of the Robber
Baron Corporations who not only raped America, but the rest of the
world and in
the end bit their own asses.

Everyone hates us, and for good reason.

Get rid of the insurance companies. All they do is kill people and
they have a
deliberate agenda to take over Medicine. BigPharma says "treat
everything."
BigInsurance says "treat nothing." The difference is why BigInsurance
is winning. BigInsurance spend smore on the salaries of the stupid
people- lawyers,
while BigPharma spends more on the smart people- scientists.


This is a really, dumb, contradictory batch of poison, that we thought
the NYTimes
was going to try to grow out of. The Times should get someone to
write editorials
who understands physics so we can train the politicians.


KMDickson



Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpinLyme/